Useful Searches

Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

An Article I wrote on the ESV

The English Standard Version(ESV) was released by Crossway Books in 2001. They profess that the ESV is the most accurate version and is easier to read. According to them, the King James Bible(KJV) is not accurate and we need to update the language, just like all the other 300 new versions that have been published for money making purposes. One must notice that the new versions always compare themselves to the KJV.

Their claim is that the KJV is hard to understand and needs updating. Nothing can be further from the truth. When grammatically compared to the KJV, the ESV is much harder to read.

On the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level the KJB received a 4.32 when the ESV received an 8.22. The sentence complexity for the KJV is 29, when the ESV is 61. Vocabulary complexity for the KJV is 2 and the ESV is 10. With the higher number being easier to read, the short sentences in the KJV has 10,342 and the ESV with 3,441. Again the KJV has 5,728 simple sentences with the ESV having 2,301. The ESV had 13,478 big words, while the KJV only had 7,020. Finally, the KJV had the average of 8.78 average words per sentence when the ESV had 18.82. These results show that the people of the ESV have lied about their translation being easier to read.

The ESV's preface and introduction state that the ESV captures the precise wording of the "original text". That is a flat out lie because no one has the "originals" today. What we have today is around 6,000 pieces of copies of the Greek New Testament with most differing from each other. The ESV committee members are dishonest and handle the precious words of God deceitfully.

2 Corinthians 4:2 "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." KJV

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus(TR) text. This text agrees with over 99% of the 5,686 Greek manuscripts. The ESV, along with all the other new versions is translated from the text of Westcott and Hort(W&H), which drastically different from the TR. The W&H text, that has been altered by the philosophy of men, removes complete verses and words, which explains why the new versions do the same. The new versions are not just "updating the language", they are corrupting the word of God with the help of the corrupt W&H text.

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are the two men behind the corrupt Greek text of the new versions. These two men were on the translating committee of the Revised Version(RV). By reading these two men's quotes any Christian would agree that these two men were heretics.

For time sake, I will not quote all of their quotes, but leave it up to the reader to research these men. Here are just some of the false beliefs of these men. Both did not believe in the infallibility or authority of the Holy Scriptures. They denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and did not believe in a literal eternal Hell. Both denied the literal account of creation in Genesis. Westcott believed in the worship of Mary, while Hort said that the worship of Mary and Jesus had a lot in common. Hort believed in the Roman Catholic sacraments and taught baptismal regeneration. Westcott did not believe in the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ, nor believed in a literal heaven. Hort did not believe in the Trinity, nor believed in literal angels. Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution also. The list goes on and on, but I will stop there.

Those are the men behind the new version's Greek text and after examining their beliefs one can see why the new versions corrupt major doctrines, such as the deity of Jesus Christ. Understand that it is not just the ESV that uses the W&H text, but all the other new versions, such as the NIV, NASV, ASV, RV, RSV, NCV, etc.

The W&H Greek text consists of two corrupt manuscripts that disagree with the Majority text. These two manuscripts that are filled with errors are called the Vaticanus and Siniaticus, which include the Apocrypha in the Old Testament. The KJV translators made it clear that the Apocrypha was not inspired scripture by putting it in the middle for only historical reasons and noting that it was not scripture. The ESV uses the 4th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament and the 27th edition of Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, which follow the W&H Greek text.

Deceitfully, the ESV claims lineage to the KJV. Again, nothing can be further from the truth because as you have seen, the KJV and ESV use completely different texts in translating. The ESV uses the same Greek text as the Revised Standard Version(RSV), which claimed the KJV had many mistakes when it was published.

The Lord has warned people against subtracting and adding to his words. The ESV goes directly against God's command and takes out 17 complete verses. The fact is, the new version people are LIARS because they claim that they are just updating the language to make it "easier", but what they have done is used the corrupt W&H Greek text that corrupts doctrines and alters the precious words of God.

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." KJV

What a verse to take to completely out!

Not only does the ESV take out 17 complete verses, it takes out over 33,000 words in just the New Testament alone. If the ESV is "easier" to read it is not because of it's reading grade scale, but the fact that is takes out so much of God's word.

In Matthew 5:22, the ESV makes Jesus Christ a sinner by removing the phrase "without a cause". Remember that Jesus Christ got angry in Mark 3:5.

Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." KJV

Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." ESV

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" KJV

Philippians 2:6 "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ESV

In 1 Timothy 3:16, the ESV attacks the deity and incarnation of Jesus Christ by replacing "God" with "He".

1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." KJV

1 Timothy 3:16 "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." ESV

The ESV takes out the words "is come in the flesh" proving itself have the spirit of antichrist behind it.

1 John 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." KJV

1 John 4:3 "and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." ESV

We know that there are many sons of God in scripture, such as Adam(Luke 3:38), the angels(Job 1:6) and Christians(Philippians 2:15). With that in mind, the ESV changes John 3:16 into a lie by removing the word "begotten".

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." KJV

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." ESV

The Lord's Prayer is changed into the Devil's Prayer by removing the phrases "which art in heaven", "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in the earth" and "deliver us from evil". The "father" of the ESV is not in heaven and does not want to deliver us from evil because it is Satan who is behind this corrupt translation!

Luke 11:2 "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 3 Give us day by day our daily bread. 4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." KJV

Luke 11:2 "And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread, 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation." ESV

The Virgin Birth is attacked by the ESV in Luke 2:33 by saying that Joseph was the father of Jesus!

Luke 2:33 "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." KJV

Luke 2:33 "And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him." ESV

While the ESV corrupts the word of God, it seems like they try their best to cover their tracts. In 2 Corinthians 2:17, they replace "corrupt the word of God" with "peddlers of God's word".

2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." KJV

2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ." ESV

The ESV takes out the word "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15 and replaces it with "Do your best". What a joke right? Not only do they do that, but they take out the words "rightly dividing" and replace it with "rightly handling". To understand the Bible one must know how to rightly divide it.

2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." KJV

2 Timothy 2:15 "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." ESV

In Luke 4:4, the ESV takes out the phrase "but by every word of God" and we can see why! Note that the Lord Jesus Christ is quoting Deuteronomy 8:3.

Luke 4:4 "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." KJV

Remember that I said Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution and that the ESV and new versions come from the W&H text. Knowing that, one must take a look at the verses dealing with Salvation in the ESV. In the ESV, salvation is not a one time finished thing, rather salvation is a process and is not complete. Notice in the below verses that the KJV says "saved", while the ESV says "being saved".

Act 2:47 "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." KJV

Acts 2:47 "praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." ESV

-

1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." KJV

1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." ESV

-

1 Corinthians 15:2 "By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." KJV

1 Corinthians 15:2 "and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain." ESV

-

2 Corinthians 2:15 "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:" KJV

2 Corinthians 2:15 "For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing," ESV

In Colossians 2:10, the ESV says that we are not "complete" in Christ, rather we are just "filled".

Colossians 2:10 "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" KJV

Colossians 2:10 "and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority." ESV

The ESV perverts the simplicity of salvation in Matthew 7:14 by saying "the way is hard". There is nothing hard about being saved. Being saved is simply by realizing you are a sinner and trusting Jesus Christ(John 10:9, John 4:14).

Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." KJV

Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." ESV

I understand that I quoted a lot of verses making this article fairly long, but I wanted the reader to actually see just SOME of the corruptions in the ESV. Believe me, what I have shown is not even half of all the corruptions in the ESV.

So, what have we learned? The ESV flat out lies by saying it is just an update of the KJV and is "easier" to read. The ESV people talk about the "originals" without never even seeing them. The ESV uses the corrupt Greek manuscripts by W&H that are based upon the Vaticanus and Siniaticus manuscripts, which include the Catholic Apocrypha IN the Old Testament. Finally, they take out complete verses and words, while corrupting major doctrines and attacking our Lord Jesus Christ.

Contrary to popular belief, this is a VERY serious issue and must be examined. Having God's pure word is the #1 issue because without the word of God we would not know what God said about anything, including major doctrines like salvation and the deity of Jesus Christ. If the new versions are taking away from the word of God then the Bible issue is everything but a "non-issue". Christian, the Devil is undoubtedly involved with the new versions, such as the ESV, NIV, NASV and NKJV.

On the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level the KJB received a 4.32 when the ESV received an 8.22. The sentence complexity for the KJV is 29, when the ESV is 61. Vocabulary complexity for the KJV is 2 and the ESV is 10. With the higher number being easier to read, the short sentences in the KJV has 10,342 and the ESV with 3,441. Again the KJV has 5,728 simple sentences with the ESV having 2,301. The ESV had 13,478 big words, while the KJV only had 7,020. Finally, the KJV had the average of 8.78 average words per sentence when the ESV had 18.82. These results show that the people of the ESV have lied about their translation being easier to read.

The ESV's preface and introduction state that the ESV captures the precise wording of the "original text". That is a flat out lie because no one has the "originals" today. What we have today is around 6,000 pieces of copies of the Greek New Testament with most differing from each other. The ESV committee members are dishonest and handle the precious words of God deceitfully.

Click to expand...

And not one of them agrees with the KJV New Testament in its entirety, there are even places where the KJV has no MSS support but follows conjectural emendations, if we're going to criticise one translation while holding another up as exmplar we should do so fairly. KJVO are dishonest and mishandle the precious word of God.

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus(TR) text. This text agrees with over 99% of the 5,686 Greek manuscripts.

The ESV, along with all the other new versions is translated from the text of Westcott and Hort(W&H)

Click to expand...

Wrong again, the ESV most closely aligns with the NA28, no "modern" version is based on the W&H, while there were some things that W&H got right, there are others which they got wrong the NA28 is based on a critical study of the papyri and majuscule texts. Just as the TR compiled by Erasmus was done so from a handful of Greek MSS.

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are the two men behind the corrupt Greek text of the new versions. These two men were on the translating committee of the Revised Version(RV). By reading these two men's quotes any Christian would agree that these two men were heretics.

Click to expand...

You can quotemine (the act of quoting someone to make them say something they never said) to the detriment of anyone.

Here are just some of the false beliefs of these men. Both did not believe in the infallibility or authority of the Holy Scriptures.

Click to expand...

They did believe.

They denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and did not believe in a literal eternal Hell.

Click to expand...

Both accepted these two as well.

Both denied the literal account of creation in Genesis. Westcott believed in the worship of Mary, while Hort said that the worship of Mary and Jesus had a lot in common. Hort believed in the Roman Catholic sacraments and taught baptismal regeneration. Westcott did not believe in the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ, nor believed in a literal heaven. Hort did not believe in the Trinity, nor believed in literal angels. Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution also. The list goes on and on, but I will stop there.

Click to expand...

My goodness only those, good thing you stopped you don't want to embarrass yourself out of existence.

Keachian, do you have God's pure word that was promised for every generation? If so, can you tell me where to obtain it? Can you hold it in your hands? Or do you trust scholars to tell you which text is "better" and then rely on your judgment or someone else's judgment on how something should be translated. We all know for one Greek word you can have 10 different English translations. I have God's word in the King James Bible. I believe God kept His promise and preserved it in today's Universal language, English. I also understand that there are over 30 different editions of the Textus Receptus. The King James translators used several of them, including other texts and manuscripts.

Keachian, do you have God's pure word that was promised for every generation? If so, can you tell me where to obtain it?Can you hold it in your hands? Or do you trust scholars to tell you which text is "better" and then rely on your judgment or someone else's judgment on how something should be translated.

Click to expand...

Given through the enlivening Spirit not by ink on paper.

We all know for one Greek word you can have 10 different English translations.

Click to expand...

Well you're just full of embarrassment aren't you, criticising Greek Scholars while making fallacious statements that no Greek Scholar would make.

I have God's word in the King James Bible.

Click to expand...

So you have a Government propaganda piece and you think we should think of it as the word of God, Baptist you are not.

I believe God kept His promise and preserved it in today's Universal language, English.

Click to expand...

No such promise.

I also understand that there are over 30 different editions of the Textus Receptus. The King James translators used several of them, including other texts and manuscripts.

Click to expand...

Placing the locus of inspiration at the time of translation is quite frankly the most absurd and unbaptist thing I've heard.

And not one of them agrees with the KJV New Testament in its entirety, there are even places where the KJV has no MSS support but follows conjectural emendations, if we're going to criticise one translation while holding another up as exmplar we should do so fairly. KJVO are dishonest and mishandle the precious word of God.

Wrong again, the ESV most closely aligns with the NA28, no "modern" version is based on the W&H, while there were some things that W&H got right, there are others which they got wrong the NA28 is based on a critical study of the papyri and majuscule texts. Just as the TR compiled by Erasmus was done so from a handful of Greek MSS.

You can quotemine (the act of quoting someone to make them say something they never said) to the detriment of anyone.

Here are just some of the false beliefs of these men. Both did not believe in the infallibility or authority of the Holy Scriptures.

Click to expand...

They did believe.

Both accepted these two as well.

My goodness only those, good thing you stopped you don't want to embarrass yourself out of existence.

Brother, in order for a translation to be guilty of "removing" verses from the Bible, you first have to prove that those verses were in the original writings to begin with.

So go ahead..prove it.

Rather than the new translations "removing" verses in some kind of conspiracy, the TR actually added verses and words that were never there to begin with.

What you see "removed" in the newer translations are these words that were "added" by the TR. Why? Because we have found better, older manuscripts, thus when we took a look at them, we discovered that some things were not in the Bible that the TR added.

Please spot the double standard KJVOism has. KJVOism accuses newer translations "removing" stuff from the bible, but it turn a blind eye when the TR "adds" stuff to the Bible. Hypocrisy.

Brother, I was in your shoes once. I was a KJVO advocate for many years. But though my intentions were good, my convictions on the matter were blinded by false information and a misunderstanding. If you'd like I can recommend some materials for further study. My entire family was stauch KJVOists at one time, but we have all since changed our minds. Also, KJVOism is full of circular arguments. Observe:

"The KJV is right and the New Bibles are wrong! Because They don't match the KJV!"

Doesn't this make the KJV the standard by which to measure the word of God? It's circular reasoning.

There are many things wrong with the KJV. In fact the KJV Bible you hold in your hands is not really the 1611 KJV but an updated version that has corrected many errors.

The KJV is definitely not innocent in terms of tampering with the original language. For example in 1 Sam 10:24 (and many other places), in the KJV you will find the phrase "God save the king!" This was a common expression in Europe in the era the KJV was translated. However in the original Hebrew language the phrase is simply "chayah melek" which means "to let live" or "to keep alive", thus a proper translation should be "And all the people said, May the king live". But the KJV changes this to "And all the people said, God save the king"

The word "God" is not actually in the Hebrew phrase. Nevertheless the KJV adds the word "God" and not only adds the word but completely changes the phrase to suit the culture of the time.

The irony and hypocrisy here is that there is really nothing wrong with the KJV using the phrase "God save the king" because dynamic equivalence is a common translation device. There is nothing wrong with taking a phrase and making it make sense to the reader. The KJV does this many times, but KJVO advocates cry foul with "modern" translations do this exact same thing, thus showing the hypocrisy.

So, the KJV adds words to the Word of God. The phrase "God save the king" is never in the original writings. Let me remind you of your argument:

Brother, in order for a translation to be guilty of "removing" verses from the Bible, you first have to prove that those verses were in the original writings to begin with.

So go ahead..prove it.

Rather than the new translations "removing" verses in some kind of conspiracy, the TR actually added verses and words that were never there to begin with.

What you see "removed" in the newer translations are these words that were "added" by the TR. Why? Because we have found better, older manuscripts, thus when we took a look at them, we discovered that some things were not in the Bible that the TR added.

Please spot the double standard KJVOism has. KJVOism accuses newer translations "removing" stuff from the bible, but it turn a blind eye when the TR "adds" stuff to the Bible. Hypocrisy.

Brother, I was in your shoes once. I was a KJVO advocate for many years. But though my intentions were good, my convictions on the matter were blinded by false information and a misunderstanding. If you'd like I can recommend some materials for further study. My entire family was stauch KJVOists at one time, but we have all since changed our minds. Also, KJVOism is full of circular arguments. Observe:

"The KJV is right and the New Bibles are wrong! Because They don't match the KJV!"

Doesn't this make the KJV the standard by which to measure the word of God? It's circular reasoning.

There are many things wrong with the KJV. In fact the KJV Bible you hold in your hands is not really the 1611 KJV but an updated version that has corrected many errors.

The KJV is definitely not innocent in terms of tampering with the original language. For example in 1 Sam 10:24 (and many other places), in the KJV you will find the phrase "God save the king!" This was a common expression in Europe in the era the KJV was translated. However in the original Hebrew language the phrase is simply "chayah melek" which means "to let live" or "to keep alive", thus a proper translation should be "And all the people said, May the king live". But the KJV changes this to "And all the people said, God save the king"

The word "God" is not actually in the Hebrew phrase. Nevertheless the KJV adds the word "God" and not only adds the word but completely changes the phrase to suit the culture of the time.

The irony and hypocrisy here is that there is really nothing wrong with the KJV using the phrase "God save the king" because dynamic equivalence is a common translation device. There is nothing wrong with taking a phrase and making it make sense to the reader. The KJV does this many times, but KJVO advocates cry foul with "modern" translations do this exact same thing, thus showing the hypocrisy.

So, the KJV adds words to the Word of God. The phrase "God save the king" is never in the original writings. Let me remind you of your argument:

I grew up in the Independant Fundamental Baptist church, die hard KJVO, one day about 15 or so years ago listening to the angry debates about new Bible translations, it dawned on me, "These guys almost sound like the Bible was originally inspired in the King James English" When that thought hit me, I easily was able to conclude, but it was not, and if it had been translated to KJ English, to Latin, to Spanish, my it is getting translated all the time, so as long as I study my scripture and trust God, the Holy Spirit, why should I be afraid to look into these newer translations. Now I prefer the New King James, simply because it retains the rhythm I grew up with, and it is comfortable, while kicking Shakespeare to the curb (thee thou etc) But in my studies I have 5 different translations, and it has opened the Scriptures into a whole new light.

1. What we call the "King James Bible" here in America is more properly called the Authorised Version. Who authorised it? King James I for the Church of England. Baptist congregations have no vested interest in the King of England's high-church sensibilities. The Baptist faith and the CoE are on opposing sides of history.

2. It cannot be said that a translation is perfect if even one word can be rendered more accurately. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the KJV cannot be improved upon.

A translation can be inspired and perfect. An example of that would be putting OT Hebrew into NT Greek. It kept it's inspiration. The KJB is pure because they used the right set of manuscripts. If you want to read the new versions that come from Catholic manuscripts then go ahead, but count me out.

A translation can be inspired and perfect. An example of that would be putting OT Hebrew into NT Greek. It kept it's inspiration. The KJB is pure because they used the right set of manuscripts. If you want to read the new versions that come from Catholic manuscripts then go ahead, but count me out.

Click to expand...

So you'd happily go with the completely Catholic reading of I John 5 inserted by Catholic Monks to 'defend' the trinity rather than what the Majority of Greek texts reads?

A translation can be inspired and perfect. An example of that would be putting OT Hebrew into NT Greek. It kept it's inspiration. The KJB is pure because they used the right set of manuscripts. If you want to read the new versions that come from Catholic manuscripts then go ahead, but count me out.

Click to expand...

So no comment on the KJV adding words to the Bible?

The KJB is pure because they used the right set of manuscripts.

Click to expand...

Also, this is pure assertion on your part. No evidence, no proof, no reason.

How come you allow the Textus Rec. to add to the Word of God, but you hold other translations guilty for removing from the Word of God?

Do you not see your double standard?

How come you are OK with the KJV adding words to the Word of God?

The sooner you honestly answer these questions, the sooner you will drop your KJVOism. But of course, that will require you to be honest and a seeker of the truth, rather than devotion to a particular translation.

One must notice that the new versions always compare themselves to the KJV.

Click to expand...

Always? How so?

Their claim is that the KJV is hard to understand and needs updating. Nothing can be further from the truth. When grammatically compared to the KJV, the ESV is much harder to read.

Click to expand...

I find it easier to read. I don't know why that's a significant issue though.

On the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level the KJB received a 4.32 when the ESV received an 8.22. The sentence complexity for the KJV is 29, when the ESV is 61. Vocabulary complexity for the KJV is 2 and the ESV is 10. With the higher number being easier to read, the short sentences in the KJV has 10,342 and the ESV with 3,441. Again the KJV has 5,728 simple sentences with the ESV having 2,301. The ESV had 13,478 big words, while the KJV only had 7,020. Finally, the KJV had the average of 8.78 average words per sentence when the ESV had 18.82. These results show that the people of the ESV have lied about their translation being easier to read.

Click to expand...

So are you saying the KJV is catering to children while the ESV is geared toward adults? That seems to be the conclusion.

The ESV's preface and introduction state that the ESV captures the precise wording of the "original text". That is a flat out lie because no one has the "originals" today. What we have today is around 6,000 pieces of copies of the Greek New Testament with most differing from each other. The ESV committee members are dishonest and handle the precious words of God deceitfully.

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you know how statistics work and so just made a mistake. We do know what the originals said thanks to the thousands of manuscripts and the various textual families.

The W&H text, that has been altered by the philosophy of men,

Click to expand...

What is that philosophy?

Both did not believe in the infallibility or authority of the Holy Scriptures.

Click to expand...

And what does this have to do with textual transmission?

They denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and did not believe in a literal eternal Hell. Both denied the literal account of creation in Genesis. Westcott believed in the worship of Mary, while Hort said that the worship of Mary and Jesus had a lot in common. Hort believed in the Roman Catholic sacraments and taught baptismal regeneration. Westcott did not believe in the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ, nor believed in a literal heaven. Hort did not believe in the Trinity, nor believed in literal angels. Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution also. The list goes on and on, but I will stop there.

Click to expand...

And what does any of this have to do with textual transmission? I don't immediately see any necessary connection.

which include the Apocrypha in the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

*gasp*. The tradition of including the Apocrypha goes back to the Septuagint and is hardly some ulterior motive on the parts of the ESV translators.

The KJV translators made it clear that the Apocrypha was not inspired scripture by putting it in the middle for only historical reasons and noting that it was not scripture.

Click to expand...

Why believe the KJV translators?

The Lord has warned people against subtracting and adding to his words.

Click to expand...

Well, specifically the books of Deuteronomy and Revelation.

The fact is, the new version people are LIARS because they claim that they are just updating the language to make it "easier", but what they have done is used the corrupt W&H Greek text that corrupts doctrines and alters the precious words of God.

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." KJV

What a verse to take to completely out!

Click to expand...

You do know that the exact same words are found in Luke 19:10 in the ESV.....right? It seems that the reasons for not including the verse in Matthew weren't so nefarious. Or if their motives were so devious, you have to explain why they left in Luk 19:10

Not only does the ESV take out 17 complete verses, it takes out over 33,000 words in just the New Testament alone. If the ESV is "easier" to read it is not because of it's reading grade scale, but the fact that is takes out so much of God's word.

Click to expand...

....or it could be that the KJV ADDS to God's Word....but you didn't consider that perspective...

In Matthew 5:22, the ESV makes Jesus Christ a sinner by removing the phrase "without a cause". Remember that Jesus Christ got angry in Mark 3:5.

Click to expand...

How does that make Jesus a sinner?

It seems to me in Matt 5:22 that being angry with a brother parallels to insulting a brother and calling a brother fool. This also seems to be geared directly toward behavior of Christians with each other.

Mark 3:5 isn't the same. In Mark 3:5 Jesus clearly has a good reason to be angry, and he's not calling his brother fool, insulting his brother, or being angry with his brother.

In 1 Timothy 3:16, the ESV attacks the deity and incarnation of Jesus Christ by replacing "God" with "He".

1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." KJV

1 Timothy 3:16 "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." ESV

Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" KJV

Isaiah 14:12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!" ESV

Click to expand...

Isaiah 14:12 is referencing a pagan myth about the planet Venus and comparing that myth to the fall of the [then] King of Babylon.

2 Peter 1:19 is clearly not drawing that same comparison. 2 Pet 1:19 is metaphroical language about the recognition of Jesus as God's Son in whom God delights (1:17).

I think based on the verses you've posted we cannot conlude that the motives of the translators of the ESV were so nefarious. Or, if they were nefarious, we have to conclude that they were beyond extremely caraeless since they happened to leave in the very teachings they were trying to take out. They would have managed to fail in their goals - and fail miserably.

No, the warranted conclusion is that they were trying to take the manuscript evidence and use actual reaons for including or not-including things. Those reaons are given on a case-by-case basis and based on manuscript evidence and reasoning rather than some wide-sweeping ulterior and sinister motives as you seem to say.

If they had wanted to remove things for reasons as you suggest, their bible would have looked something like Jefferson's bible.

So you'd happily go with the completely Catholic reading of I John 5 inserted by Catholic Monks to 'defend' the trinity rather than what the Majority of Greek texts reads?

Click to expand...

Can we copy and paste articles wrote by friends?...

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed.

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." [5]

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? [8]

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.